Over-Population (?) - Page 5

Illuminatus · 10-03-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Black

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... poor little ih8stupidppl...
Anti-matter is very much a reality. As I stated before, Anti-matter DOES already exist. It isn't very far off in the future. All anti-matter is, is atoms that have an electron and neutron core surrounded by protons (thus the anti bit). But it is VERY VERY expensive and hard to make.
Also, when people talk about finding new fuel types they don't mean new ethanol based fuel. What, do you think somebodies just going to spot some lying around and go 'Hey! Lookit that! We could use that as fuel! I'VE SAVED THE WORLD!!!!11!1!!!' Not happening, I'm afraid.
And renewable fuel sources, like wind, have already been discovered, so how could anyone DISCOVER THEM, dumbass?
And Nuclear Fission is safe. The reason it is failing is because new power plants cost LOTS to build. And I was talking about Nuclear FUSION before, which is different from Fission.

I can see that in addition to your blocky paragraphs, poor punctuation and dubious grammar, you additionally have poor reading comprehension.

I understand what anti-matter is. I understand how it works. I understand that it exists. I also understand that since average joe American wets his pants every time a Nuclear power plant goes up, the chances of an anti-matter ANYTHING happening soon are slim to none. Would you care to explain the process of getting energy out of your anti-matter, or is that just supposed to happen on it's own? How about controlling it? Creating it? Do you know how ANY of that is done?

My brain hurts from the rest of your post. Alternative plant and hydrogen based fuels are the near future. People can trust them. They make sense. They don't sound like something out of Star Trek. And when I spoke of renewable fuel sources, I wasn't suggesting that we discover them. I was suggesting that they might become efficient enough to use consistently.

I also know the difference between fission and fusion. Try reading my post again. And try reading this one before you respond.

Oh, and yes, fission is safe. We all know that. That doesn't change the fact that people are afraid of it. It's a shame too, it could solve lots of our energy problems.

As far as the topic goes...overpopulation is a MAJOR problem, just not on a global level...in citites like New Delhi, Bangkok, and Beijing over population is a reality that just keeps getting worse-squalid conditions, starving families, so on and so forth. Try to look beyond your own lives. Just because there's huge open spaces in Minnesota doesn't make overpopulation not a problem

10-03-2004, 05:04 PM

Nature will just kill off extra mass. The only problem is the possibility of destruction of natural resources for the (admittedly short) overpopulation spree. Fortunately, we already have plenty of extra food that we can't use anyway.

Dark Black · 10-03-2004, 05:27 PM

What the hells is wrong with my paragraphs, grammar OR punctuation?
You get energy from anti-matter by colliding it with matter. You don't 'control it'. It's fucking atoms! And you make it by shooting atoms (matter atoms) at incredibly high velocities, which turns them into anti-matter by the process of polarisation, into regular atoms.
We were talking about FUTURE energy sources, as in sources you can use when over-population actually becomes a problem. American's are stupid, and don't really have much of a say in what gets done. If anti-matter was a viable source of energy, there would be plenty of people willing to use it, people who AREN'T afraid of their own fucking government.
And in places like China, the local population problem is caused because poor people flock to cities looking for work. There is still masses of fucking space they COULD move to. That doesn't really count as overpopulation so much as stupidity.
And OH FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, SINCE WHEN DO 'AVERAGE JOE AMERICAN'S' HAVE A SAY IN ANYTHING ANYWAY? Who gives a fuck if it gives them the 'heebie jeebies' or some bollocks like that? That isn't going to stop fucking progress!

Illuminatus · 10-03-2004, 08:15 PM

When's the last time the government ever did anything ballsy? The space race. We have no motivation to try anything new. We're too stuck on oil to realize that we're running out, and even people in the government that do realize it are reluctant to spend more than a few bucks researching better energy sources. Anti-matter is a pretty far-out concept, and not something they're going to be willing to try anytime soon.

adamark · 10-03-2004, 08:29 PM

What's with all the quaint little darwinian statements that are used so often?
Remember, if you find yourself making a statement about overpopulation that darwin would agree with, you're probably in the upper or middle class = you're a rich s.o.b. that doesn't care about the people that would suffer in a darwinian world.

here's the problem, though. nature will not "kill off" extra people before they kill us off first. starving people don't starve if they can kill other people, first.

10-03-2004, 09:38 PM

So true Adamark, so true.

After all, when you have more crazed, starving people that are on the verge of death who have nothing to lose than you have well fed people who have everything to lose, things become clear. The people who are crazed normally kill everything they can, and if they can get far enough, they won't stop 'til most of the better off folks are dead.

Well, that's one theory. Seems the most likely, as things like it (not exact scenarios, but close enough) have happened in the past. The mob scenario, I mean.

10-03-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamark

What's with all the quaint little darwinian statements that are used so often?
Remember, if you find yourself making a statement about overpopulation that darwin would agree with, you're probably in the upper or middle class = you're a rich s.o.b. that doesn't care about the people that would suffer in a darwinian world.

here's the problem, though. nature will not "kill off" extra people before they kill us off first. starving people don't starve if they can kill other people, first.

And then sufficient amounts of people are killed off, hopefully not losing us much technology, and we have a low enough headcount to support our race. Voila.

Sure life'll suck while it happens but afterwards we've lost most of our aristocracy (ie, one person who has done jackshit during their life but live off inheritance).

ChaosMage · 10-03-2004, 10:42 PM

Quote:

If things didn't make other things extinct, we'd be up to our necks in little shrimps and crap that suck balls as animals.

What you forget, when you say its ok if a whole shitload of other animals die, is that if you look at foodchains and ecosystems food can't live if it's food dies. Example: Deer can't live if grass dies. Grass can't live if earthworms die. Earthworms can't live if other animals don't die. Other animals can't live if the cows don't live to be fed to them. Flies can't live if other animals don't live and die. The major, original, point behind the prevention of the extinction of species before it became a big moral ass thing, was that if our food's food dies, we're fucked. An no, not even plants can live without animals so we couldn't live off wheat. Why? Because plants need CO2. Just not in the amounts we're producing it, causing global warming (different thread).

To set the record straight on anti-matter: Anti-matter collides with matter. According to E=mc^2, it releases energy. The problem: Anti-matter takes more energy than it gives off to produce. You control/contain antimatter in the same way that you control plasma, with a magnetic field and a circular container.

On nuclear fission: The problem with nuclear fission is that when your urainium is depleated, you're stuck with a whole bunch of stuff that is still radioactive, but no longer useful. So you bury it somewhere, but then it starts killing stuff by virtue of being radioactive.

Heres the thing about energy sources people: Sure, solar and wind produce energy. But think about how much energy it takes to make a windmill 3 stories tall. You need to create energy to weld pieces of metal together, raise that bad boy up off the ground, use energy to make the wires connecting it to the electrical grid...etc etc etc. The neat thing about oil is that we use less energy sucking it up out of the ground than we get by breaking and reforming the chemical bonds in the materials that make oil. We don't have anything at the moment but nuclear fission that can replicate that, and that has all the problems stated above. So does burning hydrogen. To get scientific on the matter:

2 H2O + X Joules of Energy -> 2 H2 + O2

Thus, we've got us some hydrogen ready for burning. The problem:

2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O + Some Number of Joules of Energy less than X.

Why less than X? Because of entropy, and the scientific impossibility of a 100% energy conversion. Because of this fact, it is impossible in a process like this to get out more than you put it, or to get the same amount of energy as you put in.

Robot Jesus · 10-03-2004, 11:41 PM

A wind mill produces infinitely more energy than it takes to build it, and you never need to buy more wind. You arguments don’t make any sense. Yes energy is lost in all conversions. Converting oil to heat to mechanical energy causes energy loss. What point are you trying to make.

Dark Black · 10-04-2004, 05:38 AM

First off, I didn't say 'nuke every animal!', I said we shouldn't be trying so hard to preserve animals that are clearly not up to the job of handling another major major adaption (an adaption to us). There are plenty of animals capable of adapting to the new environment. These animals will not (and should not) become extinct.
Second of all, if WE aren't starving that proves there is no overpopulation problem, because as you so truly stated, the people toiling all day to grow our food won't send any of it to us if they don't have any themselves. But they do, which is why I can sit here stuffing my face while writing this.
And thirdly, no, I'm not upper OR middle class. I'm not even working class, since neither of my parents work (and no, that doesn't mean they're retired). I'm just a realist.

EDIT - Oh, and Robot Jesus, it only creates more energy if you leave it running for several decades, which isn't really very practical, now is it?

10-03-2004, 08:15 PM	#44
Illuminatus The Dread Pirate Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Where the wild things are Posts: 1,310	When's the last time the government ever did anything ballsy? The space race. We have no motivation to try anything new. We're too stuck on oil to realize that we're running out, and even people in the government that do realize it are reluctant to spend more than a few bucks researching better energy sources. Anti-matter is a pretty far-out concept, and not something they're going to be willing to try anytime soon. __________________ Man, n. An animal so lost in rapturous contemplation of what he thinks he is as to overlook what he indubitably ought to be. His chief occupation is the extermination of other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth and Canada. -Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary

10-03-2004, 11:41 PM	#49
Robot Jesus Libertarian Socialist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 377	A wind mill produces infinitely more energy than it takes to build it, and you never need to buy more wind. You arguments don’t make any sense. Yes energy is lost in all conversions. Converting oil to heat to mechanical energy causes energy loss. What point are you trying to make. __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. ---Richard Dawkins there was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross. ---Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche These are rumors spread by the liberal, elite media. Much like civil rights and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.

10-03-2004, 05:04 PM	#42
Cyclone231 Guest Posts: n/a	Nature will just kill off extra mass. The only problem is the possibility of destruction of natural resources for the (admittedly short) overpopulation spree. Fortunately, we already have plenty of extra food that we can't use anyway.

10-03-2004, 05:27 PM	#43
Dark Black Even eviller than black! Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 114	What the hells is wrong with my paragraphs, grammar OR punctuation? You get energy from anti-matter by colliding it with matter. You don't 'control it'. It's fucking atoms! And you make it by shooting atoms (matter atoms) at incredibly high velocities, which turns them into anti-matter by the process of polarisation, into regular atoms. We were talking about FUTURE energy sources, as in sources you can use when over-population actually becomes a problem. American's are stupid, and don't really have much of a say in what gets done. If anti-matter was a viable source of energy, there would be plenty of people willing to use it, people who AREN'T afraid of their own fucking government. And in places like China, the local population problem is caused because poor people flock to cities looking for work. There is still masses of fucking space they COULD move to. That doesn't really count as overpopulation so much as stupidity. And OH FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, SINCE WHEN DO 'AVERAGE JOE AMERICAN'S' HAVE A SAY IN ANYTHING ANYWAY? Who gives a fuck if it gives them the 'heebie jeebies' or some bollocks like that? That isn't going to stop fucking progress!

10-03-2004, 09:38 PM	#46
LordTobias Guest Posts: n/a	So true Adamark, so true. After all, when you have more crazed, starving people that are on the verge of death who have nothing to lose than you have well fed people who have everything to lose, things become clear. The people who are crazed normally kill everything they can, and if they can get far enough, they won't stop 'til most of the better off folks are dead. Well, that's one theory. Seems the most likely, as things like it (not exact scenarios, but close enough) have happened in the past. The mob scenario, I mean.

10-04-2004, 05:38 AM	#50
Dark Black Even eviller than black! Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 114	First off, I didn't say 'nuke every animal!', I said we shouldn't be trying so hard to preserve animals that are clearly not up to the job of handling another major major adaption (an adaption to us). There are plenty of animals capable of adapting to the new environment. These animals will not (and should not) become extinct. Second of all, if WE aren't starving that proves there is no overpopulation problem, because as you so truly stated, the people toiling all day to grow our food won't send any of it to us if they don't have any themselves. But they do, which is why I can sit here stuffing my face while writing this. And thirdly, no, I'm not upper OR middle class. I'm not even working class, since neither of my parents work (and no, that doesn't mean they're retired). I'm just a realist. EDIT - Oh, and Robot Jesus, it only creates more energy if you leave it running for several decades, which isn't really very practical, now is it?